I found this neat article on GMOs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
I don't know who you're talking about, unfortunately. Maybe they'll show up later or something? This thread is less than a day old.

I'm sorry if I end up starting a crazy flame war over this. I just don't understand why people get so militant about this over the internet. I've truthfully had more civil and intelligent conversations about GMOs with people who own small farms and the like--and they have true reasons to get up in arms about such an issue, considering the Plant Variety Protection Act allows Monsanto to sue them blind on the occasion that nature does what it does best and ensures their superior pollen perpetuates itself.

Not to sound snobby, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who claim that Monsanto's "bad business practices shouldn't be a reflection on GMOs as a whole" probably don't even know that the scenario I presented above is one of their "bad business practices." They just heard someone else say it and then parroted it back without questioning it or looking into it themselves--which is what they accuse non-skeptics of doing.

Grrrr! It's so frustrating.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
Hold on a sec. I'm going to have to read the thread to figure out where we're at.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. It's called agriculture. Maybe you've heard of it?
Cool


Anti-GMO science is almost uniformly dogshit awful. The methodology is inadequate, the analysis is superficial, the results are cherrypicked, and the conclusions are unfounded.


... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)


My ass we don't. Genetic modification as a process is as utterly harmless as selective breeding.

All that is then left is for one to go full conspiracy and say, "but they put bad things in it because reasons rabble rabble monsanto rabble reptiloids", but, that's quite a different claim.
(I stress that you are not making it; there are those who do, and they are idiots)

Bout god damn time you showed up. Have any sources that show GMOs are good?

Do you have any sources that show tofu is good?
Do you have any sources that show wheat is good?
Do you have any sources that show cabbage is good?
Do you have any sources that show broccoli is good? Dodgy

Pro tip: This is a trick question.

Every one of those is genetically modified.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:48 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Have any sources that show GMOs are good?

Not offhand. The null hypothesis is the default.

Absent a coherent definition and a plausible mechanism, the reasonable assumption is that a small difference in degree (ie, of genetic modification by humans) does not have a significant effect.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-07-2014, 07:50 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. It's called agriculture. Maybe you've heard of it?
Cool

Yes, of course I've heard of it. It is my major, as I've already stated. You want to check the attitude?


(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anti-GMO science is almost uniformly dogshit awful. The methodology is inadequate, the analysis is superficial, the results are cherrypicked, and the conclusions are unfounded.

"Citation needed" is truthfully the only thing that can even be said to this.

(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)

I actually don't adhere to the random mutation theory as the sole driver of evolution.....and neither does anyone who is worth their salt in their field. I'm leaning more towards serial endosymbiosis myself, but if we want to argue evolution itself we should probably just start another thread. This is a red herring, and you KNOW it is. Kale and broccoli are the same genetic species, they were artificially bred by humans, but the traits in each of those subspecies could have come about by natural means by geographical isolation or a million other factors. You KNOW it isn't the same thing as injecting corn with bacterial genes that were never in it's genome to begin with. Anyone with a half a brain knows that, seriously.

[
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  My ass we don't. Genetic modification as a process is as utterly harmless as selective breeding.

See above. If you can't tell the difference, you need to go back to kindergarten.

Oh, and I suppose another "citation needed" is in order. But that will just start the epic back-and-forth, tit-for-tat that ALWAYS happens with internet conversations of this sort.

[
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All that is then left is for one to go full conspiracy and say, "but they put bad things in it because reasons rabble rabble monsanto rabble reptiloids", but, that's quite a different claim.
(I stress that you are not making it; there are those who do, and they are idiots)

You just proved my point about GMO apprehensives being viewed as stoned hippies who are just trying to stick it to the man. I am a college student with a 3.6 GPA.

All of my professors, except for one, are in agreement that more studies need to be done on GMOs, and at the very least, the laws in the United States need to be changed to protect small farms.

Btw, the one professor who "knows" that GMOs are 100% safe and there is nothing wrong with them whatsoever, is the exact same one who thinks climate change is a "liberal conspiracy."

You can't make this shit up.

Anyway, shall we continue then? We aren't going to get anywhere. I've already done this dozens of times before. It always ends the same way.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Have any sources that show GMOs are good?

Not offhand. The null hypothesis is the default.

Absent a coherent definition and a plausible mechanism, the reasonable assumption is that a small difference in degree (ie, of genetic modification by humans) does not have a significant effect.

So in other words GMOs are not bad, but they are not necessarily good?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:35 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  I'm sorry if I end up starting a crazy flame war over this. I just don't understand why people get so militant about this over the internet. I've truthfully had more civil and intelligent conversations about GMOs with people who own small farms and the like--and they have true reasons to get up in arms about such an issue, considering the Plant Variety Protection Act allows Monsanto to sue them blind on the occasion that nature does what it does best and ensures their superior pollen perpetuates itself.

Except that isn't true. Monsanto is one of the greatest bogeymen of our time. Nothing more.

Selling patented seed strains without buying them is illegal. Cross-pollination is inevitable and no one has ever been sued for it. There's a century of precedent for that.

(08-07-2014 07:35 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Not to sound snobby, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who claim that Monsanto's "bad business practices shouldn't be a reflection on GMOs as a whole" probably don't even know that the scenario I presented above is one of their "bad business practices." They just heard someone else say it and then parroted it back without questioning it or looking into it themselves--which is what they accuse non-skeptics of doing.

Grrrr! It's so frustrating.

It is indeed.

Repeating something unverified doesn't make it true - but it doesn't make it false, either. It's simply not going to convince anyone.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:34 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Bout god damn time you showed up. Have any sources that show GMOs are good?

Do you have any sources that show tofu is good?
Do you have any sources that show wheat is good?
Do you have any sources that show cabbage is good?
Do you have any sources that show broccoli is good? Dodgy

Pro tip: This is a trick question.

Every one of those is genetically modified.

If that is the case then GMOs don't seem to bad.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)

I actually don't adhere to the random mutation theory as the sole driver of evolution.....and neither does anyone who is worth their salt in their field. I'm leaning more towards serial endosymbiosis myself, but if we want to argue evolution itself we should probably just start another thread. This is a red herring, and you KNOW it is. Kale and broccoli are the same genetic species, they were artificially bred by humans, but the traits in each of those subspecies could have come about by natural means by geographical isolation or a million other factors. You KNOW it isn't the same thing as injecting corn with bacterial genes that were never in it's genome to begin with. Anyone with a half a brain knows that, seriously.

Random mutation provides variation and cumulative selection retains the functional.

If you don't believe that please describe a mechanism that does the work. Endosymbiosis is an event, not a process. It does not explain evolution, just evolvability.

There is no substantive difference between gene splicing and mutation. If you think there is, let's hear a coherent explanation of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Except that isn't true. Monsanto is one of the greatest bogeymen of our time. Nothing more.

Please consider my rebuttal, in the form of, you know, the exact wording within the act itself.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?...DEV3002796


(08-07-2014 07:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Repeating something unverified doesn't make it true - but it doesn't make it false, either. It's simply not going to convince anyone.

As I already mentioned--I've ACCEPTED that people are going to argue me into infinity over the internet when I discuss GMOs. I could have piles and piles of proof, and it won't make a difference. This is one of those things that skeptics and science crusaders have latched onto as a flagship issue. Nothing I say is going to be taken seriously even though this is my field of study in real life.

Additionally, you haven't actually addressed anything I've said. You just keep repeating your own opinion and claiming victory, just as I said you would.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: